to continue our discussion about egypt. onstar arab transitions program act in april. theave been exploring trends and the new dynamics coming out of egypt over the last couple of years and months. we hosted politician and egyptian activist two weeks ago. council of the atlantic spoke and examined many of the reasons leading to the protests in june and july. continuing in the tradition featuring a diversity of voices, we welcome scholars ahmad atif ford and jonathan brown today's discussion.

originally they were scheduled to talk about the constitution and that is when we spoke about three months ago. i want to thank them for their flexibility and their willingness to put on different hats. as john pointed out on friday, everything is so much in flux. it is early to be talking definitively about trends or calculations. we must keep that in mind. i want to thank our moderator, a senior resource facilitator at fellow well as a senior and has been very involved in management and conflict resolution in iraq and the balkans during his past. thank you all and i would like to hand the event over to you, dan.

>> welcome to you all. i want to urge those him back to come up front, if you want those seats. is a great honor to moderate today's panel. serious experts on the question of religion and politics. a professorhmad is of religious studies at the university of california at santa barbara and a scholar of modern egyptian law. i asked him what he did in the last life to deserve being a professor at santa barbara, which is one of the best things that can happen to you.

professor jonathan brown is a professor of islam and muslim christian understanding at georgetown. his research focuses on conflict between sunni traditionalism -- this session was conceived coup, and iuly did call it a coup. it takes on additional significance with the removal of president morsi from power. professor brown will focus on the muslim brotherhood and the how thisto his ouster, will affect their thinking and how this will affect her thinking about democratic engagement. professor ahmad will broaden the focus a bit to have the morsi episode was shaped islamic

ideology and egyptian attitudes more broadly and will take a peek at the reaction beyond e.g. possible or and how recent events-- beyond egypt possible borders. without further ado, let me ask professor brown to take the off.m and start us &a a session at q the end. >> thank you very much and thank you for inviting me. at one ofme i spoke the events was in november. it was a very different atmosphere and setting. i want to say that events that are taking place in egypt right

now are tumultuous. there is a huge amount of personal suffering. we can sometimes seem snide or cynical. these are real people suffering. i would probably choose the phrase of the desolate plans of mice and men as a good way to view the experience from 2011 until today. i am optimistic about the future despite that. aftermath ofto the the 2011 ouster of mubarak. this is an extremely dynamic time in egypt.

the more moderate muslim brotherhood figures to the other and you see the same question presented to all these organizations -- what is going to be your relationship to political involvement? this is a phrase and a question about are you going to left a political party? what is the relationship going to be to your religious organization? they do teaching and social servicing and medical work and legal work. you do all of these activities. what is going to be the activity between the local wing and the actual core organization? what you see is in the case of the muslim brotherhood, the voices that say we are religious organizations, we are not political organizations, those

voices lose out. the muslim brotherhood goes whole hog into political activism. there is the freedom of justice party and that is a legal fig not ancause -- it is independent entity. it takes its direction from the muslim brotherhood guidance counselor. the one group that approach this issue from a theoretical he sophisticated point of view and came up with the best model for the party,nship was the political manifestation of the alexandria-based organization. it was the most popular organization in egypt.

they had a plan. the party would draw on the organization but it would be completely separate. if things took a turn for the worse, it could simply be jettisoned and at no cost to the original religious organization. if you look at the next two years, you see a lot of close people almost rescued themselves from medicaments or fall victim to very tragic circumstances. when the freedom of justice party is presented with the question of whether they are going to run presidential first the general body of the organization votes against running presidential candidates.

it was after several rounds of hired in which the forces the most powerful person in the organization. those forces committed to running a presidential candidate keep calling more rounds of voting and bringing in supporters making sure everybody is there and you get a close vote to run a presidential candidate. that is when the muslim asotherhood's fate w sealed. election, onee success is not an option. success was never going to be an option. when you know you're going to fail, this raises serious questions for the future of your organization. momentegy -- a tragic

with one party. personalities in charge of the religious organization are simply too strong to be contained. they have no formal position in the political party. balance and they are in effect directing political activism. this is the case for maybe one .f the most people --t happens is the party the structure starts crumbling. there are defections. trace this decomposition

of the party up until present day. today is really a shell that provides it does not provide a fig leaf for the close government. quickly backtracks from supporting the military options. is leadership of the party no longer willing to support the crackdowns of the military in cairo and other places. their offices have closed down and they have joined another party that are supportive of the muslim brotherhood. so the nour party is not going to be a force in any independent way in the future. what about the present

situation? we are at a point of intense crisis. there has been so much focus on the number of people who came out on june 30, how many people were supporting the coup? we have to pay attention to what has happened since then. ramadan is almost over. is not verygypt pleasant. it is very hot. inple throughout the country alexandria and other provincial out in protest ins intizens -- sit- support of law and order.

law and order. the rule of law. they have come out in support of this. if you were to count the number of people who came out in support of law and order and president morsi, you'd probably find it is into the millions since the coup happened. this complicates things tremendously. there is not just this one side of the equation that the egyptian people have spoken and they want morsi gone. if that were the case, the situation would be much easier. the options would be much more limited. cause has enjoyed so much popular support.

had mobs oft liberals and secular politicians coming to support them. there have been former judges who have gone to the square and said that they support the cause. what does this mean for the current situation? the military and the transitional government has a problem. these people will not go home and their numbers are increasing. so what do you do? you either go in with tanks and water guns and kill people and help they do not come back, or you have to kill more and more people until they do not come back. a big question as to whether egyptian people and the government have the stomach for further let shed. several hundred people have been killed already

. i am not sure there is going to be the kind of support for that. brotherhood and people who support the pro-morsi cause have so much support. the platform consistently on which they have stood has been to call for a return to the constitution or a return to rule of law or democratic process, which i think is very ironic. morsi's finalrom speech until today, i never heard the word "law and order.' very ironic considering the way the questions have been phrased.

if the leadership decides that this is not working and we need to acknowledge the coup is a legitimate fact and we go home and get back to things like that, they are all going to get arrested. certainly the senior leadership will be in jail. so much of their net worth and their activities to the light of day, they are now even more vulnerable than they were before. protests that ousted mubarak. stood onon, if having the argument for law and order, if they say the coup is legitimate and we are going home, they are going to be under threat of arrest and they will

have lost all of their ideological legitimacy. there is a big question about whether the muslim brotherhood would continue to be a real force. wouldntiment to egypt have to find other homes to exist in, other networks. it would not be the muslim brotherhood network. what are possible ways forward? the sides are so far apart. government says to accept to be safe, and to go home and continue your nonpolitical activities, you need to accept the legitimacy of this coup.

.hat is not going to happen supporters cannot make that concession. the muslim brotherhood says you need to accept that morsi is still the legitimate president and acknowledge that this coup was not legitimate. difficultnlikely or to ahe egyptian leadership knowledge this. i think there is some hope for the future, however. in issues by some of the intellectuals that are proposing things like, morsi returns to power simply as a transitional role so the constitutionality of the democratic process can be preserved.

he hands over power to a powerful prime minister and some group of deputy prime ministers who represent some government. parliamentary elections are held. the egyptian political future proceeds in a constitutionally legitimate fashion. i think there is no possibility for morsi to return to power in any meaningful way. the compromise they would be thatg is acknowledging returning to the democratic process and the compromise was to say, we are out of power for now and i think if we go back to the original moment of decision making in the spring of 2011 about whether the organization should be involved in politics, i think the answer is going to

be absolutely not. succeeds, one of the results will be the retreat from political activity for some long period in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [applause] d. > ofessor ahma >> ok. i think jonathan did everything that could be done. we will chat about something else. egypt today, the egyptian population is characterized by division, confusion, and the willingness to go from one

extreme to another and in a relatively short flotilla of time -- short period of time. canhistory of this -- you always do a lot of things with history. modern egyptian history is fantastic drama. precedents toe undo years ago for some things that are happening today. the history of the last three years has the most impact about what is going on today. go source of the division, back to the initial uprising. one question that was not raise sufficiently was why did the initial uprising happened? we know why it happened. there were so many problems. what did the majority want? the uprising is not one thing.

there were people willing to go from day one or week one or week two. there were a lot of people who watched the revolution and thought they were part of it. forget about the international scene for a second. i will go back to the question about any insight feast united states my jaw from this. even egypt and is might disagree. how the initial uprising was interpreted differently. people saw in it what they wanted from it. i think that is legitimate for individuals are dissipating in a society. they speak in the name of other people. the division goes back all the way. the willingness to go to extremes -- just look at how people looked at the army. iny like it very much

february, 2011. i was personally surprised. they dislike it very much by may, 2012. they liked it very much by june, july and they could dislike it again. calculates only ybe ofl number -- ma thousand at the maximum would die and they wind up being wrong by five orders of magnitude. is not improbable the attitude toward the army would change again. it will come back. the people are really vulnerable. confusion results in a way

naturally. people look at themselves and ask, am i sure about this? do i have access to get information? some people are fine with that. some people are not fine with that. so what does this tell us? we identify the islamic actors. there was a division because it was a new choice after 2011 whether to our dissipate in politics or not. the many people in the islamic were very happy with social and moral utopia. they are very much utopias to --e protected participants. people are just happy to look a

certain way and to dress a certain way. they feel happy and are comfortable. they do not talk to other people the same way. that is one expression. that will continue maybe for a lot of people. they will say, i told you so. it doesn't do anything for us. i want to feel i can for phil more of my religious obligations within my community and avoid the outside world. and some of them go back and forth and vacillate within these parameters. if we're asking about the islamist actors, some of them might think about -- this is a hard question. to what extent did egyptian

society change and then change n a way you rapidly so -- irreparably so. it cannot go back to accepting the news about people being hit 1980's right the in front of cairo university. somebody got killed and we saw traces of the blood. the police were chasing somebody and they killed somebody on the motorcycle. what did we do? some people were curious. you see something like that, you're terrified. blood is cheap. blood is now a normal. we are not afraid anymore. is that true? that is a certain prejudice.

but i do not know. i am leaning toward it didn't change sufficiently. a return to this would be impossible. i keep looking at modern egyptian history. i know these moments of history happened. i can give you the evidence. there was an assassination. wholeld world o -- the determination self- was coined. not-determination but i do mean i will fight an empire for you. the agitation tends to go down. it can be looked at suspiciously

from a political science point of view. i keep thinking some acceptance of what is going on will happen. political energy will run out. back to my question. islamic actors will react differently to whatever conclusion. some will go back to their enclaves. that triumph was possible and now see it is difficult. gangs disband. but some cannot help themselves. some people will want to go back and run for city council. they will be in the legislative bodies. or if they get an offer to be on the executive authority, they will accept it.

they will think of it as something given to them as individuals. i think this is a goal of the army and liberals. it would be great if these people come back and participate in politics and lose. individualsceed as do not as a group anymore. it was that moment when people nationali can win elections. can they go back? tohink they will go back something that is a hybrid of this high that people have now and something else that is more sustainable. so society is divided and confused. this can go on for a while. this is one set of discoveries.

there are other things that move everybody in the direction of settling down. how about excepting that you do not understand? the last point will be about the united states. as werse it is hard agree. before you got more by doing less. this is painful because it is new to the united states. it can be done in an intelligent way. i think talking in certain contexts always hurts. misunderstood, i do not think i should have an incentive to explain. sometimes that provides additional miss understanding. sometimes as a teacher you think you are the master. sometimes i introduce materials

to the students that are just beyond their capacity. i understand a week later it is not happening. fix this in 30 minutes. it doesn't usually work like that. people need time. miss understanding leads to further misunderstanding. i do not know anything about the hidden paths of diplomacy and politics. i recognize it is a moment of suspicion. it doesn't have to last. -- this is a rational. by being partefit of this conversation. i have no thought about the long-term plans.

to do isd, the best always to do less and make it sound as if i do not have to deal with some of these details. they are being determined by the population. this is a very strange moment in history. think about the history of democracy. where the freeal males come together and they vote or it is the institutions that are very controlled and there are usually a lot of factors outside of the elections. what you have is something different. taking the ancient idea of people coming out -- the numbers are different, millions. what do you do if you have a city where you could have

hundreds of thousands of people here and they are saying something different? that led to the ridiculous conclusion of counting by airplanes. for an outsider, there was no reason to pretend you understand what you do not understand. understanding to take that position as a teacher by solving a problem in 20 minutes. take a deep breath and maybe learn something about what is going on. figure out what is going on. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] there are some seats up front. do not be shy. i am going to open the q&a period with a question to both

of the speakers. it is a subject on which you did on any deathuch which i is the question say the potential for people to react in a violent direction. disappointed in democratic politics. this doese might say, not work for us. maybe something else well. do you have a sense that that might be happening in egypt today? do you have a sense that reaction would spread more broadly in the islamic world? anythingd say that that happens in sinai -- is its

own special creature in egypt. tolence there is not related violence elsewhere. if you look at the beginning of the anti--who protests -- anti- .oup protests you sell people part of the jihad organization who would just come out of prison in 2011 saying we will reject violence and we are not going to fight back with violence. we are not going to kill people. that is very interesting. there has not been any evidence to contradict that this is the dominant theme and course of action these people have chosen to take. let's say the leadership says, we are going back to clinics and

things like that, and they just abandoned the ideological ground completely. now people do not have any ground to stand on except processesand all its have failed. there is no rule of law. legitimate and pakistan is not recognizing the government. african is not recognizing the interim government. they cannot get calls through and things like that. why should we participate within the framework? you abandon the ground completely in a time of extreme potential --n the and gained a time of despair. you cannot do that anymore.

that is a real danger. if the muslim brotherhood leadership abandoned their cause currently, i think that would be very bad news for people who want to avoid potential violence. the order ofce of the terrorism of the 1990s in egypt, nobody can include that possibility. if you're in the background and are asking that something like syria can handle and i think that would depend on the army. the army has to be divided. the difference in the egyptian army and the serious army is that the egyptian army has not fought for a while. u could sayarmy -- yo that egyptians have fought more since 1973.

the syrian army kind of fights all the time. it has to do with the fact that it has been fighting and it could split. we do not see that in the egyptian army. the scaryhave violence that would change the structure of the society. if there is nothing like that, is just the violence of the terrorism of the 1990's. that was scary. it is not easy. it is different from what happened. we scholars are addicted to analogy. we are working and trying not to do these things. >> thank you. question. let me start here. first.introduce yourself

i am a senior fellow at sais upstairs. a lack of understanding dire lack.-- a i have lived and moved around the cycle for so long. the essence from the beginning impaction. call is lent and politics is one and the same -- islam and politics is one and the same. there is no giving that up. they may go underground.

we talked about violence. initiated --s not outside, al qaeda types. that could be a real possibility. this, your opinion on that the failed experiment democracy as far as the receptions are concerned or the factu could call -- they are not going to participate in this is a chance to be heard. once empowered, there is no going back now. they are not going back to medical clinics. they were the political objective there to provide social services.

they could not engage in politics above ground because they were being repressed. that has all changed. what is your opinion on that? it may turn into something else. >> thank you. i was worried about what you were going to say until you started talking. i'm not going to get into these debates. if we want to say that every single muslim brotherhood doctor is treating someone for a rash in rural egypt, that is nonsense. they were doing medical and political involvement in the 1990's. there are lots of other organizations.

one of the oldest islamist organization has no political involvement whatsoever. another one from the 1920's and older than the muslim brotherhood. no political involvement. "we oppose politics." they have been on tv saying that for months. is everything political? yes, obviously. there are things that are political in the professorial sense. there is a lot of space there. there has been and always will be for islamist groups to thrive. >> be clear what you say everybody is mated to a connection. who is everybody?

people who held leadership positions. you want to pay attention to the fact that a lot of people identify themselves as members who are not really them but they a lot of these people were significant in the elections. these people are different. they do not have to think the way a political science book in america describes them overall. i agree with you. there is a dilemma. if you begin your sense of you know what that is. that is not political at all. rituals are very important. men and women are different. you do not talk to the old the way you talk to the young. --to move avoid banks

from this kind of islam to say that islam is everything and it ituld be everywhere -- governs also the public life. that move indicates that the person is the satisfied with the normal customs and traditions. there is a process to go through, either by hitting the this dichotomy, to what extent egypt in law is moving away by figures is not real. i will give you a simple fact. in the 1940's, there was a committee that drafted the civil code. there was an egyptian jurist and a professor.

they came with the project and first it was sent to the lawyers and judges to comment on. judges -- he attended and there was a member of the committee looking at the draft. hre isn'tsaying, "te isn't in their -- tehrhere enough in there." on the other side, people are looking at it as a political thing. i am not saying this to say something bad. he looks bad in the discussion. there is a lot you have not studied or looked at.

when they were empowered, they started to realize. they were accused of the nour party of not being interested in the sharia. they were beginning to realize that this question has to be impacted and what does it mean? i have time to look at this. it is kind of obvious. if you're a medical doctor and you attend these families. people sit together and talk about politics and religion. this stuff does not go very far. i think you are asking a difficult question. you always have time to change your mind if new information is available. >> someone right there. >> i am from egypt. i have heard the word open space

"coup" in the last few months more than i have heard in my life. each action's have liked the military and they dislike them and they like them and i expect them to dislike them again. democracy is not just about the ballopts. i took the streets to overthrow morsi and his regime. we have three demands --social justice, change, and freedom. none of them have been met. the idea was when you see your president involved in every sect and i was every integrity among egyptians and you find a president and he will hold his decisions and is decrease and

nobody consumed and in front of a court. he see him addressing the constitution that does not guarantee freedom and rights and right away the muslim brotherhood has been tried now and a lot of the people have told them, do not do this. call this coup was not a coup. democracy is not about ballots. this is the case. this was the worst available option maybe. i will rephrase it. there is no way egyptians will accept it. even if people have voted for

them. this was just a general comment. given the fact that there are a couple of moments within the which aretherhood calling for the leaders and to stop taking the streets. how far do you think this movement going to affect the general structure of the rather of the brotherhood? >> thank you for the question and the comment. i want you to send the microphone down there. first will get reaction from the panel. >> another option would be to wait a few months. that would have been another option. supposedly 33 million people came out into the streets. n thebly could have wo

elections. you have military dictatorship. i am not convinced that this was a sensible course of action given the names that you have. a sentimental fan of democratic process. groupsond issue is these like the muslim brotherhood against violence. with --oups have eight --i have af suspicion that they exist in any in dependent form. if they have a big impact, i think it would be good for the organization. see if, i would wait and

they end up with a lot of support. i could be wrong. >> it exists within the group. if these groups exist, they are a manifestation. but not every division will be expressed in a movement. basically we are going from intuition here. i see circumstantial evidence. this is what it seems. people are shocked by how much happened in three years. they are still assimilating and thinking and taking it in. we have toe the way, be smarter about this. mean, itwhat does it does not mean revolution? one of my agrees is in arabic theology.

i do not want to get into that. you will react to a provocation. revolution itself is a hominid onym.ini i am amazed by how much literature came out from the issue. a lot of it is about language. we should not get into that. >> thank you. with regard to the possibility of increased violence, if the suez canal was to be closed down, what do you suppose the reaction of nato would be? me.his is beyond >> highly speculative question.

i trust that somebody in the defense department worries about such things and that there are plans someplace. frankly, it has been a longtime since suez was knocked out of commission. i do not think anybody seriously anticipates that at this point. plays thethink it role in the world oil market that it once did because a lot of ships go all the way around. demand is to the east. i am not sure that this would represent as big an issue as some people might imagine. let me ask the microphone to come down here to wendy, our leader at the middle east. >> thank you. i am a retired officer.

one of the things that we are told as a junior officer was the united states can never not have a policy as a superpower. i appreciate both of the remarks very much. theses, theand your united states will get it coming and going. the best approach would be to take a deep breath, let it out and exhale, sit back and do nothing. both sides are attacking. all sides are attacking the united states because we are not doing things. to get into you that a little bit. he kind of hit the nail on the head, even in washington. we are divided and confused on

the same issue. do we get involved? can we not get involved? >> i just learned a lesson from you. you have to have a policy. you have to think about contingencies. -- if you this more are on the defense, it is always bad. we are seeing some of this on an intellectual level. i have a lot of control over the discussions i have. being on the defensive, you can never get it right. the united states is on the offensive. it may be one analogy that is very of limited use. lawsuit and the

lawyer tells you do not talk as much. you could be an expert witness. it is still in your interest the cause it is easy to get it wrong and easy to contradict something that you said before. research and and i do not know what is usually done there. everything you say is discoverable, even if you say it in a certain room. contradictions are not hard. we contradict ourselves. i cannot go further. >> we know that at the noon press briefing, you have to be able to respond. with a statement and that is a good deal of what gets us into

trouble. no doubt about it. professor brown? >> i am a selfish person. i think a lot about the number of people who want to blow up the city i live in. if you look at islam this discourse, and a lot of it is about, look what happened to is not a realracy avenue. they are never going to let us have our own islam government and things like that. coup ising this backing up that narrative. that scares me. i would rather have the united states shepherd a system and have some kind of outcome that you can live with. not a return to president morsi.

i think that would be more sensible. i do not pretend to know how people think and the government all the time. >> thank you. let me take one here. may be one of the microphones can go to the gentleman in the light cap -- white cap. >> thank you. i am a professor. don't you think that this problem in egypt is more serious than practical? on the other hand, traditionalism does not involve muslims --muslims cannot find a way but they are not secularists. iran. the background of you

problem -- isni't that there. an american if gets involved in the kind of solution, to just gather all of them together and find a solution for them would work out? what about the american solution in this way? >> professor ahmad? >> i will stop with the first question. there is enough literature in arabic and a lot of egyptian thinkers think of themselves that we discovered that most

local exercises and political action have nothing to do with the language of the jurists. that is correct. that is undeniable. associatedt i want to go back to some of what we said about whether islamist actors are qualified to get into this question of interpreting history and tradition. i am unfortunately biased. they're not qualified. it doesn't work like that. it is not good intentions. it takes a couple of years of studying and then you realize some of the questions are false, some of them are raised wrong, and the questions are raised right and answered in a fairly sophisticated way still fall

short of a real discussion. scene, you are even farther from that because people are entitled to interpret their the -- interpret their positions the way they want. i agree with the subtext of the question and i don't know where to go further. i might just comment really about the negotiated solution question, since that is my game. thatnk it is quite clear the current positions of the therend the brotherhood, is no zone of possible agreement. that is quite clear. positions are just positions and they are the opening gambit in a negotiation. ist we are watching in egypt in fact a negotiation.

professor brown has offered a optimize where there is a zone of possible agreement with the idea of mohamed morsi returning momentarily to power long enough to appoint the prime minister and that is it. that is one possibility. there are other possibilities as well. i think we are all watching a negotiation, but it's a big position in my view for the united states to imagine they could mediate that negotiation. that is a heavy lifting requirement and i gather it will robert ford advising the american government whether it should get into that game were not. frankly, we have our hands a little bit full of negotiations at the moment.

i have my doubt whether we could be successful. it's fair to say it gypped and have an bargaining with each other for a long time and probably know how to do this. >> thank you. welln american egyptian as and i associate myself with many organizations that were here and there as well. i am deeply involved with the politics and where they are heading and so forth. the reallieve is quagmire is for the united states. we spoke about the united states as they are hands-off or they are fully engaged and have more negotiations on their hands than they can handle. ambassadorve patterson has been deeply and id on all sides

will do theford same thing. what is so scary for us in washington is the hands-off approach, that we are deeply involved, but we claim our hands are out of the process. before the days of the coup, mr. greatwas meeting in cairo what were they doing? i don't think it was a coffee cup. i think claiming our hands are off is unrealistic and untrue. is a quagmireit with the military, it might have been the case before the election, but now people are standing for the democratic process. i am reminded of president obama puff speech in cairo of all

places where he said he would support the democratic process. he said it is a democratic ideal but also the human right grade why are only calling on washington establishment to take responsibility for nurturing and supporting the democratic ross us? because we get the results we want, we are more comfortable with the military and we want to manage egypt through the military for 60 more years? i think it is unethical for washington to claim my hands or off -- my hands are off or they are full. playing inside the pot for a long time to come. the question is isn't there an ?xit if we propose as a nation that has their hands full with the process that mohamed morsi comes back, but not for a symbolic

thern, but to ensure democratically elected presidents are not going to be subject to military wins. feeling in the egyptian community here and in peoplethat the democratically elected a president. -- why aren't we talking about this? >> you have asked a good question. let's hear the answer. i think the answer is clear. i think the united states should stand by its commitment to these ideals. i'm an academic, so i have the luxury of being idealistic. i think that's a good way to live. i have actually been surprised

-- a lot of times in the last couple of years, you find the egyptian media, different parts of the egyptian media are much more accurate than the american media. during the last two months, it's bizarre to see the american more reasonable than the egyptian media as a whole. stuffed to reading this and i look at the egyptian paper and now i thank god for the "new york times" coverage. not to speak for the american people as a whole, but i think there's a lot of reverence in the united states for the -- thetic ross us democratic process and i think there is a lot of will toward that. i don't know how the decision would get made. >> do you want mohamed morsi back? >> i want to think about what

you were saying at the beginning. at the risk of being reprimanded by true professionals, i think the united states is not showing a degree of control or command. the impression people might get is they are talking a certain way but they are actually running the show. i don't see that. moment it's a decisive in american policy, realizing it's not able to do a lot of things. there are too many factors and people are talking to too many audiences. i could be wrong, but i have seen analysis to support that. if you are suggesting based on the assumption that it can andcise sufficient pressure maybe later multiple factors, i maybe thereat very

are things they can do at certain moments, but the hope now is the vision and confusion that exists in the occupation will end and we will begin to feel they agree on something. maybe they agreed to kill a few thousand people so they can move on. outill have to figure this on one scenario. there has to be a sense of agreement, but waiting for the united states is like waiting godot. we have to decide something. that is my sense. businessman. i have a different question. is the two events in egypt -- if

the two events in egypt could be related to what we know as arab and the second question is, if there is such a thing as arab spring, is there any renaissance taking place in the now,e east 100 years from will we look back and call this new movement? >> are we at a historical juncture? is something really changing? >> i think we are actually at a historical juncture, probably more so than 2011. i guess the big question is, is a country like egypt going to be something that moves forward? route.s is not a direct

there are going to be detours and things like that. is it something that will move forward or something that falls back into the past? i think there is an absolute value in foreign movement, even if it is correct. i think falling back into the past is a disaster. egypt, one of the things that becomes clear is one of the things to bed bed is the idea of egyptian leadership in the muslim world. egyptians love to talk about this. egypt is a big country with tremendous symbolic value, but if you take symbolic value and the inability to be independent financially and politically, what you have is a recipe for disaster for the

egyptian people. at no point are their best interests going to be taken into consideration. , a can't have a country country cannot lead politically if it is unable to feed its and its political destiny can be derailed or changed by simply adjusting gas pumps and electrical tiles and you have millions of people in the street because of gas lines. backld be tempted to go and look at egypt and other countries in the middle east and see that this is part of those conflicts. moment a big historical or whether or not there's going to be progress. >> i agree. we are living in an important moment. us, maybe for the next generation. i talked about fundamental

change in three years. may be they can accept some of the ideas that came out of the 2011 uprising, but that doesn't mean it will go back and forth. people to wait for something like a european renaissance. all of these analogies are just confusing. there is something happening, and a lot will happen and egypt will begin to be seen differently. it's just a big number of people. but there aren't that many new ideas in the old-fashioned sense of no ideas. you can't predict, but it's very hard to imagine. but you cannot forget. whether it is an arab spring or not, it's appealing to a certain -- it's not about

the renaissance, it's more about the 19th century. it is a big moment. people have not seen themselves do this before. look on tv and see these numbers. a lot of things that happened this that is thinking what nation is about and its relationship to other nations. of it,ng will come out but it's hard to sit here on august 5 of 2013 imagine what this entry will look like. by one of the images, people have not seen themselves doing this before. it is quite striking. i'm from the embassy of egypt. thank you for the panel, but i probably have to disagree with what you're saying because former president morsi was

democratically elected, but we have to agree election is not only democracy. about one year grabbing power and i don't think americanshat, definition of democracy, grabbing power, excluding the rest of the forces throughout the constitution, that does not represent the rest of the country. i'm sorry to say. why are you in knowing that for one year, he used democracy to grab power? second, you are portraying what happened as military versus the muslim brotherhood, but you are it wasn't just asking morsi to leave, but other

egyptian groups. and you had representatives from non-islamist groups. you forget about the millions that went into the streets. this is how we have to look to just a vision of democracy that has in installed here for hundreds of years. we are still establishing a democracy. do, is what i want you to read what's happening with the egyptian vision. >> first of all, you are right. is not about elections. just because you win an election

doesn't mean you can do what you want. that is what mom and morsi did not understand. people can write countless books about the bad decisions they made. i have no problem with that. when you are talking about choosing governments, then democracy is about elections because i can say there were 30 million people in the streets to count have no way these people and that's why you have votes trade everybody has a piece of paper and they get counted. you have to have elections. it is about governments and consensus building. i would simply say if president morsi is so terrible, it's very easy to have parliamentary elections that reflect a lack of confidence or you could wait until the next residential election and run him out of office. i don't see anything in the i read then --

egyptian press for the constitution and i don't know where this power grab was. i just don't see it. it's sort of like the figment that just gets floated around. just vote him out of office and everyone will be happy. >> please, one at a time. to understand that egyptians are still building their own democracy. you cannot just apply the american system. americans did not invent elections and a lot of people in the world do it much better than the united states. i think a good way is to have a means of counting the people who want things. that is very basic grade if you can't count what the people want, you can count it. that's just the way it works. >> we agree more than you think, actually. i don't think anybody is in a

position to say where the majority is now because it's divided. but the majority of people hate the muslim brothers and don't be a wimp or something like that. you have to recognize the majority of people don't like these people. but it is an assertion. mucht becomes just too great everyone has an intuition from conversation. you and i think to modify some of what he said, an agreement with baseline of what you're saying, democratic participation is funny. if we were to ask the majority of people and ask them about whether going out in the streets is as good as elections, they would say yes. maybe what you have is five elections, but there were other elections a lot.

and you are right. because it is such an early experience, it bears certain interpretations that should not outside. by the i'm totally in agreement grade i don't think we disagree. we may disagree, i felt like in the subtext of your sentences, there are some things we agree on. i think we agree more than you >> i've served in the government for a long time and was part of the small group that set up a long-term security assistance program of egypt. one thing i am hearing today is that it's all about islamism and yet i get this impression from the 33 million that showed up to is much morehat it

secularism than there is islamism. but the whole discussion has been simply whether the islamists are going to take over or not. otherbout that undifferentiated mass? with all the ambiguity and causing age which is lot of suffering because islamism means different things to different people, i came up with a hypothesis that was very imprudent on my part right after february 2011. years,een here for 14 but i know egypt so well that i populationu the wants islam light. don't say anything bad about the prophet.

don't ask them to do five- time prayers -- that is my sense of the majority. on living there for 26 years. people have to recognize, don't push people either toward a kind .f liberalism people don't pray and they feel bad when somebody who used to pray doesn't pray anymore. they feel hurt. so analyze this. somebody who never praise would feel bad because somebody used to pray. they would like to feel some people are religious, just not themselves. [laughter] this is very puzzling. i can think of an american analogy but let me not go that far. these things just exist in society. this -- it'snk of

90 million people and i'm not even sure there are 90 million. we will get to know more. i think the issue at hand is mechanisms by which the decisions are made. your question brings up the 20 million oraid 33 million. these are just numbers. have any basis. there's no actual basis for this. discussionto hold a and we have no grounds for making claims. claims as long as they are not based on evidence, their children will just be more claims.

how can you come to any kind of conclusions or agreements on that? >> i'm a retired economist. just wondering about the various factions involved. what's the thinking or positions on the questions as far as raising the peasants to a higher and are competence there in tense interests preventing that and how does that factor into the current situation in egypt? but youot an economist, could make a great example of a country that faces so many economic problems that it's almost incomprehensible to imagine any improvement over the short or medium term.

it's not just structurally unsustainable. it's structurally unsustainable in the immediate term. the reason why a lot of people peoplet to protest is hadn't made any money for two years. people are completely miserable. their country has totally stalled economically. if someone is not able to improve or give people any sort suffer, then they will thelar fates unless security service and the army shut down protests like they would have done under mubarak. when i think about egypt's economic future, i sort of cry. >> they really did not study

mainstream economics. they have to study beyond their field just to get a sense of what's going on in the muslim world. the country went through many ways that were contradictory and led to these problems. but there are a lot of what people refer to, the big fat word "corruption." institutions that have never made transparent or have a mechanism to go around. i keep hearing all of these pessimistic things. one of my friends was appointed, he is going to be in charge of everything other than the banks. big mess and a very confusing to have to ask the basic questions while you

are dealing with immediate needs. that would really take a big team of people who know a lot and don't just take ideas outside of egypt and don't just apply them to what might or might not work. >> professor brown, do you have a final word for us? >> i can't believe that was 90 minutes. it was very enjoyable. when car talk is about to end, the brothers say you just wasted 60 minutes. we somehow managed to waste 90 minutes of your time. thank you for coming. >> we enjoyed it and thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a quick reminder that if you missed any of this morning's events, you can see it anytime at the c-span video library. .ust go to www.c-span.org or live coverage to tell you about terry coming up@1:00, live at the national press club, we get remarks from texas, craddick state senator, wendy davis. she will address the local climate in texas and washington dc along with their political plans for the future. in june, she launched a 10 hour plus filibuster against a texas

senate abortion bill. the legislation did pass and you can see remarks live again at 1:00 eastern right here on c- span. coming up later, the new jersey senate candidate debate. the speaker of the state's general assembly president -- our coverage is courtesy of new jersey public television and begins live at 7:30 eastern. looking at the white house now. press secretary jay carney will be briefing reporters this afternoon, starting at 2:00 eastern. we expect him to address the state department announcement that the limited facilities will remain closed in egypt, jordan, saudi arabia and kuwait among other countries. the state department announced that yesterday closures of four .frican sites

the u.s. has also decided to reopen some post today including those in baghdad. the administration announced the embassies would be closed over the weekend and a global travel alert was issued saying al qaeda might target public or private american interests. we expect jay carney to address that and a number of other issues today which is set for 2:00 eastern. you can see that live on our companion network, c-span2. president obama has chosen arizona as the next stop on his middle-class speech tour. we have been given a peek at some of the items. he will be talking about homeowners and those hoping to own a home. the next stop outlining his idea for growing the middle class and boosting the economy. tomorrow, he will head to burbank, california to spread an economic message on

appearance on the "tonight show" with jay leno and and will visit families at camp pendleton. >> we never really know what to do with our first ladies, and that are typically true in more hand, times as on the one they are expected to have causes. you can't imagine a first lady today without cause. on the other hand, those causes are not permitted to intrude on lawmaking or an official capacity. always been a tight rope and seeing how each of these women walk that tightrope tells you a lot not only about them, but about the institution in society.

week, we begin our encore presentation of our original series, "first ladies -- influence and image." that's weeknights all this month starting tonight at 9:00 eastern. on marthaight program washington, join in the conversation with patricia brady on facebook. >> i have been pushing for this in the senate, that we would move cybersecurity legislation. it is big and complicated. cybersecurity means different things to different people, but we need to get this done. as hard as it is for me to say the house has done something right -- i'm teasing about that, they are fine -- but they actually passed some of this and we ought to look at what they have done and if we want to take a stab at doing our own thing in

the senate, that's great, but we need to get moving. this is a real threat and a real problem and all of my colleagues on the intelligent -- intelligence community worry about cybersecurity. it is imperative that we get this done this year. thethat tonight on " communicators" on c-span2. >> on friday, former republican congressman and presidential candidate ron paul gave a keynote address to students at the young americans for liberty national convention. he reminded the audience of their obligation to advance the cause of liberty by using the internet to spread ideas. he also commented on current issues, including the actions of edward snowden and bradley manning and the closings of u.s. embassies and consulates due to terrorist threats. this was held at george mason university in arlington, virginia.

[applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. that is very nice. [applause] this is why i come to these events for young people. you're enthusiastic for the cause of liberty. that makes me excited. it's been several year since i ran for the president in 2008.

the campaign pain unit with uail. i strongly encouraged him to do. it's been do it then. lately the interviews i've been getting is always politics. this guy against this guy. republicans against the democrats. all of this stuff. i'd like to get away from some of that politicking all the time. and they said, yeah, what about all of that grid lock in washington? how you going to break out the grid lock if you don't get the parties to work together? i said our main problem in this country is for too long we've had not enough grid lock. we need more grid lock.

now if we were passing the right things which would mean there would be a limitations on new laws they would only be allowed to repeal laws. then you don't want grid lock. let them get in there and start repealing. but the grid lock is a natural consequence of a system that has failed and i think that's what so many of you have recognized that the system hasn't worked and the political system is a real mess. and they're not willing to face up to the truth. as a matter of fact, they're not willing to step up to face the truth, but when you hear the truth, they accuse the person telling the truth that a man is committing treason. i would say this is what you should be most concerned about. getting the truth about our government and making sure our government protects our privacy. you know, there's been a lot of

move on in local government and state and federal government. cameras -- cameras everywhere. everything you do. the cameras, nsa, can conspire on everything without a camera. we shouldn't be around cameras, but we should be against the government having the cameras. we want the people to have the cameras taking pictures the of everything the government is doing. i want gun control. but i want to take the guns way from the 100 -- over 100,000 bureaucrats who carry guns enforcing federal laws. they don't need the guns.

police activity was supposed to always be local. but here we are passing laws endlessly, you know, with bureaucrats carrying guns to enforce these laws. that's going to have to change. i think it is. i think what we're witnessing here in a group like this and what's happening on the campuses of the country, there is truly a revolution of ideas it's going to be a nonviolent revolution. we're going stand up on principle. an idea whose time has come and nobody is going to stop it. victor hugo was the one who had the quote about an idea whose time is come and cannot be stopped by armies. but i think that is absolutely true. and it's especially true since we have a secret weapon which is no longer secret which can be an enemy or a tool for the opposition but it's a great tool for us and that's the benefit of the internet that we we have

today. there's another reason why the revolution is alive and well and going to continue to grow. it's out of else inty. you know, it's good to have an academic discussion which many of us have been trying to get going for 40 or 50 years. there's always been a small group, a remnant. thank goodness the remnant is going right now. i think it's something that -- i think what's happening now is your age group and others, the country, maybe, and maybe this is the reason that the congress is given a 12% favorable rating is everybody is starting to realize the failure of trials and errors in foreign policy and economic policy, their confusion on civil liberties and they're saying enough is enough. we've tried all of the statism and all of the varieties of statism all the way back to the

pharaohs. it's time we had something, you know, really modern. and that is individual liberty protecting your right to your life and to the fruits of all of [applause]s. magnificent thing of the revolution going on is it's not divisive. politics in washington is divisive. conservatives here, liberals here. all of them like war. but one wants to go to this wountry. the other wants to go to this country. they'll be arguing over monetary poll sichlt should we have interest rates at 1%, or minus 1%. all of that nonsense. now that the failure is very evident, i think the opportunity is just fantastic. and that is to present the case for liberty. when you think about it, it should bring us all together because liberty -- because of

liberty and the purpose of our liberty may be used differently, each and every one of us might use it differently. we're not all going to spend our money the same. we don't all want to go to the same school, the same place, the same church. we want to make our own pickings. if you don't want to go to church, you don't have to. all of these things are personal choices. and socially, there should be choices. oh, no, well, the liberals say, oh, you can't do that. then there's somebody who might be poor and another person rich and we should have economic equality. that's a the goal. that's a good way to have [applause]- poverty. so making -- making it so that -- this is the real free choice that we should be talking about, the choice about how to run your life. and people will say economic liberty is one thing. personal liberty, life styles? we're not going tell people how to behave?

the truth is, you know, vices and sins are not to be crimes. they're to be dealt with, you as a person. you have to decide what you're going to make of your life. you're going to make all of those decisions, not the government. it could be family is involved. but once the government gets involved in all of the economic equality stuff and the personal liberty stuff that we're going to make sure that you are socially and morally, you know, the right person, it cannot be done without government becoming a tyrant. and that is what is happening. they believe -- you take a guy -- the ultimate of this would be the mayor of new york city, you know? they think -- they believe that they believe that they are necessary to protect you against yourself because you might do something dumb. you know what? there's a possibility that every one of us might do something dumb. but in a free society, you eerm

going be responsible for something -- everything that you do, you should suffer the consequences. but if you elect leaders, so-called leaders who go to washington or state house and do all of these things and say we want you to be a leader and tell us what is good, bad, should we gamble, not gamble, tell us how to handle our money, if we do this, if the government is allows to do it or attempt to do it because they can't do it they can't do it without taking away your freedom. liberty has to be the goal -- personal liberty. there was another group. i think it was called young americans, it was named -- bill buckley had a name. i like it that jeff calls it young americans for liberty. that's what's wonderful. [applause] we should be optimistic about what's happening. not only because of what's happening on the college campuses, the educational

movements going on. in the '50s and the '60s, let me tell you, i was curious. and probably almost every one of you here, you're curious. you're curious about economics and politics and how the world works, what's going to happen in the future, am i going to have a job? you're curious. a lot of people rrnd curious. if you're curious, it. >>s a blessing. once you're curious and you get answers, you end up with more obligations. most people aren't curious or care or get involved. if you're curious enough to come here and get the tidbits of what a free society is all about, i believe there's more responsibility placed on you to do something about it. the others will always be floating. in the '50s and the '60s, i was curious. i had a curious mind on economics and everything that i was doing.

the one thing we came up short with in -- in those times was the difficulty in getting the answers. i mean we had three major tv networks, we had our schools and we had our government. it took me a while to find out it was all propaganda. now, today, you know, i did find the foundation for economic education free -- the fee foundation by leonard reed. and i was able to get a lot of books back then when i discovered that. but wasn't easy. today if i'm sitting at my desk and i say, oh, i remember reading this book a long time ago, i knew i got it from leonard reed. i click on google and get my answer without even getting the book out. there's no excuse for not finding it. it doesn't mean everything you're going to read is the right thing to do but you can figure it out if you have a basic principle. no more complicated than the

nonaggression principle. [applause] you can't i happen to work that in with my own personal religious beliefs because i think my christian belief is based on love and nonaggression and persuasion and love and peace. rather than an argument for war and aggression and all of these other things that we end up doing in the name of religion. but the nonaggression principle is basically -- you can't hurt other people. which means you can't hurt them bodily and you can't take from them. you can't rob them, you can't defraud them. those rules are rather simple and clear. it would be nice if everybody did that. we would have a perfect society, it's not going happen. if you turn it over to the

government, it eisele going to fail. i think you're living in an age where there's a transition where something could be changed historically like never before. if you go back to the beginning of the recorded history 5,000 years ago, the human race was fighting and killing each other. and for a long, long time. and every time there was an advancement, a technological advancement, it was used to kill more people. you get jet airplanes, yeah, we can kill more people. we get bigger bombs. it continues to go on to killing people. but we live in an age where there's no reason to think that technology can be used by us to promote the cause of liberty through the use of the internet. i think that would be a real miracle. [ applause ] the failure of the system is out there. it's known. and the -- the frustration of

the people high -- the opportunity with the internet and the need for something i think is out there. so the success of organizations like young americans for liberty is crucial, its's vital. it's been written very often. i truly believe it. if there is going to be a true revolution, a philosophic revolution, yes there may be some of those people over 30 that might be able to give you a little advice now and then. but the revolution will be with young people. and it has to have music. [applause] i think the music is great. we always had it in our campaign. just sometimes, not quite so loud. and for me, this -- i think it's wonderful people say you really energize the young people. i tell you what, the response i get from young people, the enthusiasm, the interest, the

willingness to have an open mind where i worked with a few people in washington -- they don't have open minds. the idea that you're looking at this and separating it from partisan victory. it goes on. the willingness to see this in a much more philosophic manic. i use the analogy of what richard nixon said when he closed the gold win dope and brought in the paper dollar standard which we're still suffering from and the real suffering is yet to come. but he announced on that night, a sunday night, august 15, 19 1, i remember it clearly. he said we're all keyseians now. he say they believe in the spending and the debt. but what's happened since the 1970s. every time we get a republican

president in. oh, yes, they talk and say something you like, but they spend all of the money. they print the money, endorse the fed, endorse the wars. that has to be separated out. so we want to see the day come where we're not cainsians anymore. we're all austere economists [applause]n. and we have solutions which aren't complex. people say, well, to get us out of this mess -- we're in a real economic mess, we are. we should have allowed the liquidation to occur and bankruptcies to happen and instead they rolled all of this debt and spending and a greater burden on you is what has happened. so this is solve in the way of moving in an opposition

direction. that means, you know, if you do that, there's going be a lot of sacrifice. you heard that. everybody has to sacrifice and give up something. not if you're earning it. if you're living off of somebody else. if you're a banker or and depending on the fraction reserve banking and the federal reserve to give you free money. if you're in the military industrial complexover or the medical industrial complex on the surveillance industrial complex, yes, you're going to suffer. we want you to because that's ill-gotten gain.[applause] if i came to you and i got the wand, the wand would be just to give you your freedom. to give your right to your life. you ought to be able to keep the

fruits of your labor. why would you be sacrificing if you could just be left alone to your own privacy, work hard, and keep everything you earn. that wouldn't be a sacrifice as far as i'm concerned. it would be a blessing that could energize everybody because they're not living off of everybody else. so far, the country is so wealthy there's not been that much incentive. in a way, freedom is our own worst enemy economically speaking. because freedom created such great wealth that a lot of people were able to transfer the wealth around and politicize and did it all over the place. they endorsed the principle of transfer and they endorsed recently the idea they have to tell the rest of the world what to do. but it's different now.

we're no longer a rich country. we have debt. that is the big difference. but i don't look at it as sacrifice. liquidation of debt means that the people who caused the problem are going to have to change their way. but what has happened in the bailout, the burden has fallen on you -- future debt. inflation is going on. cost of your education going on. no jobs. this is a consequence that you suffer for that. but for the government to get out of the way, you're not -- you shouldn't be suffering. and i never want to think that freedom is something to do with sacrificing. does it mean that that will answer all of our problems? no, it won't. it should be done differently through charity and other methods. but the whole idea of humanitarianism that we take everybody, the government's job is to take care of us and make us safe and secure, we end one a real mess, nobody is really safe

and nobody is very secure. this is a transition that we're in. you're going to see it because it cannot continue. we had the nasdaq bubble, the austrian economists knew about the nasdaq bubble. they knew about the housing bubble. they knew about stock bubbles and all these things. they can see this. they might not be able to time it, but they can see it. and i'll tell you where the bubble is right now. and it has to do with debt -- government debt and especially treasury bills and bonds because there's no way in the world that we as a country can borrow endlessly for free and get people to buy our debt and spend money, print money, spend it overseas and they take the money and send it back to it. that will end. so the fact that interest rates are 0% for so many years means that the price of a bond is very, very high.

it seems that that's all people want to do because they don't know where to put the money anymore. that will be cataclysmic. a major decision will have to be made. we have to decide what foreign policy are we going to have? should our presidents go to war when they pleased or are the founders right? we should do something very old-fashioned and don't go to war unless there's a declaration of war. that's the only time. [ applause ] >> and those are the things that you have to decide on. and you have to decide that the keynsian economics is a complete failure. it's nothing more than the excuse to ex-ployed the government. they got away with it because free markets were so prosperous. in a relative sense, a huge middle class.

america was known to have the biggest middle class ever and the wealthiest middle class ever. but not anymore. look at the statistics on the unemployment, people on food stamps, 100 million people receiving some type of food assistance. and the inflation is still with us. so i -- i would say that the results have been very, very poor. and there -- we're in a situation where we're not producing either. we create a situation where we don't produce all we -- our greatest export are our dollars. this will come to an end. you will have to do something. you will have to decide. if you get confused on what we should do, when, how, you can start by saying, you know what would be a good start -- why don't we just start right now never send anybody to washington unless you really believe they'll obey the constitution.

[applause] of course, that's pretty radical. but if they're needing change, that's the kind of change -- the change we want. but we have to change attitudes too. we have to change attitudes about this authority government has assumed. they should -- the executive branch is probably the most guilty because they assume so much power they don't really have. but who's at fault. well, the congress. the congress either closes their eye or finances the illegal wars or they do all of those things. nsa gets set up. they rob us of our privacy and all of this. congress says nothing. hopefully the 12% rating we have is because people want them to say something. is it the congress, the politicians, the courts? i say, yes. only because it's a consequence of what quite a few generations before you had been told what to believe and what to think and

that the constitution was something that was supposed to be changeable and modernized and do whatever is practical and monetary policy gold is stupid, printing paper money is a wise thing to do. print money when you need it. deficits don't matter. so that's what has to -- what has to be reversed. but the -- the challenge is really overwhelming. but it will not come by saying we want to get as many good people in washington as we can. but it's not going to -- i don't think we have time to get ten new members every year and start winning the votes. i don't think it will happen that way. i don't think it will get much worse. that's why what you do for the rest of your life starting right now, you're already involved, what do you do to distribute this message. the message is powerful. i often wonder how have we been such failure in promoting this wonderful message of peace and prosperity and tolerance.

and we lose the fight all the time. we get a bunch of people telling us how we have to run our life, how we have to spend our money, and when we go to war without any permission whatsoever. just executive orders are being written. courts rubber stamp it. this is something that has to change. and i think you're going to be on the forefront of it. then you look for positive things. i don't know how smooth it will be, it's risky. lean toward optimism. i'm concerned about what other countries have done. you usually go toward a totalitarian. they get frightened. they scare people. right now, we're told there's going to be a lot of attacks around the world so we close down all of the embassies. they close them down and say

see, we just saved you from all of this grief because we saved the attacks. the last 100 attacks they said they stopped by the fbi, one of them was a real one. the 99 were ones that they the 99 were ones that they participated in and set up and enticed people, entrapped people into doing. and this is the lies that government tell. we need to have an honest government is what we need. [applause] one thing that's going on right now. very positive. you'll hear more about it. it is a procedure which is morally legitimate and constitutional because it's not been used very much.